EPYC 4124P vs i9-14900KF

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-14900KF
2023
24 cores / 32 threads, 125 Watt
38.84
+219%

Core i9-14900KF outperforms EPYC 4124P by a whopping 219% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-14900KF and EPYC 4124P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking83656
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation63.6349.83
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency28.3317.09
Architecture codenameRaptor Lake-R (2023−2024)Raphael (2023−2024)
Release date17 October 2023 (1 year ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$564$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i9-14900KF has 28% better value for money than EPYC 4124P.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-14900KF and EPYC 4124P basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads328
Base clock speed3.2 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed5.8 GHz5.1 GHz
L1 cache80 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache36 MB (shared)32 MB (shared)
Chip lithographyIntel 7 nm5 nm
Die size257 mm271 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data61 °C
Number of transistorsno data6,570 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-14900KF and EPYC 4124P compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFCLGA1700AM5
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-14900KF and EPYC 4124P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Core i9-14900KF and EPYC 4124P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-14900KF and EPYC 4124P are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-14900KF and EPYC 4124P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5-5600, DDR4-3200DDR5
Maximum memory size192 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth89.6 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-14900KF and EPYC 4124P.

PCIe version5.0 and 4.05.0
PCI Express lanes1628

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i9-14900KF 38.84
+219%
EPYC 4124P 12.18

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

i9-14900KF 59438
+219%
EPYC 4124P 18637

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 38.84 12.18
Recency 17 October 2023 21 May 2024
Physical cores 24 4
Threads 32 8
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 65 Watt

i9-14900KF has a 218.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 500% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

EPYC 4124P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 92.3% lower power consumption.

The Core i9-14900KF is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 4124P in performance tests.

Note that Core i9-14900KF is a desktop processor while EPYC 4124P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-14900KF and EPYC 4124P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i9-14900KF
Core i9-14900KF
AMD EPYC 4124P
EPYC 4124P

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 317 votes

Rate Core i9-14900KF on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 4124P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-14900KF or EPYC 4124P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.